NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions

Those are just handouts to keep the NASA bashers mouths full.

And payling comsat payloads are actually getting bigger. All Cubesat is doing is exploring the steppes in detail

I heard exactly the opposite, that comsats are getting smaller due to improvements in electronics and other satellite subsystems.

Then it is the job of SFF to--instead of bashing NASA--to FIND larger payloads. We will never be able to go back to the moon or go to Mars without big rockets. That's a fact, like it or not. And as long as we keep thinking than smallsats are the answer to everything--as long as we think the typical payload is what we have now--humanity will never progress.

The follwoing article underlines and highlights some of what I answered to gaetanomarano: "House Budget Proposal Could Delay Shuttle Replacement" ( www.space.com/news/070131_nasa_budget.html ):

The Congress is about to deny improved decision authority for NASA and to deny the budget wanted, needed, required.

Since Ares I is threatened a larger rocket would be threatened the more.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

Alpha Bus is huge actually.

What is Alpha Bus? Give us a link.

A kind of telecom Sat orbiting in a GEO platform

.

3.5 years later... NASA seems want to adopt my suggestion...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/ ... cle-noted/

.

Nasa has always known that it needs and has always wanted bigger rockets.

The only people who don't want mega rockets are in Congress.

Rockets need to be provided by private industry, not the government. By the time Ares is ready, SpaceX will have the Falcon 9 heavy ready.

It would be more economical to just launch 200 tons worth of rocks than to "find" bigger payloads. It would be more honest, too. What you're advocating is throwing away money.
A much better way of getting to the moon is to make prizes, like the x-prize. As soon as there is real competition through private industry, the answers will be found.

The situation is somewhat similar to the beginnings of the automotive industry.

I do not think the pioneers are unaware of the benefits of trans-continental shipping of goods and equipments given that close involvement in developing automobiles. But one has to start small with the Flanders and the Studebakers before going to Class 8 Kenworths/Peterbilts.

However, private industry won't be interested in prizes, unless the prize money exceeds the cost of winning it. Which won't happen. There isn't enough prize money to go round. SS1 cost more than the prize, The LLC (for AA, not sure about the other one) cost more than the prize, N-prize will cost more than the prize, and the Google prize will probably cost more to achieve than the money you win.

Another point, is that if government spend the money, then it is only spent once. If multiple companies are trying for a prize, then more money is spent to achieve the same aim - and only one can win. That's a lot of wasted money.

Things like COTS are more sensible in this area because there is an obvious income source at the end - hence SpaceX.

Absolutely agree with you JH. COTS is the more sensible solution but even if NASA hadn't gone down this route, SpaceX has consistently stated that it would have carried on by itself since it was founded on the philosophy of facilitating a space-faring human civilisation.

Incidentally, COTS-D has yet to be funded but you'll notice that Dragon has windows which are redundant when simply ferrying cargo. Evidence that SpaceX is either gambling on COTS-D or is really prepared to go it alone.
I don't think they need NASA anyway. They have a number of commercial customers and Bigalow still doesn't have an STS for getting crew to and from their space habitats.

In another thread, I noted that SpaceX has plans (possibly even more) for a powerful 3rd stage to their Falcon 9 or F9 Heavy being Raptor (AIAA Conference).

Scuttlebut says that they've recently licenced to use or produce either an existing powerful LOX/RP-1 or LOX/LH2 (RS-68?)engine. Think it might be the former.

Back on topic: I don't think that bigger rockets than say the F9H or the existing Delta IV or Atlas V are really needed. Space construction has now been proved possible so a number of deliveries to an LEO or a bit higher to reduce the atmospheric drag component could prove to be the answer.

Off- topic : So what's needed for the next step:
1. No bigger rockets but increased reliability and cost efficiency - on the way;
2. Space habitats - on the way;
3. Propellant / Supply Depots - technically feasible;
4. Political willingness - sadly lacking ;
5. Supporting technologies such as lightweight radiation and other hazard protection, oxygen and other efficient recycling, and so on - on the way;
6. Reduced risk aversion - currently lacking

So really seems to be the human issues rather than the technical ones that are preventing progress beyond LEO - but we knew that anyway - right


Cheers